Taylor v Goodwin (1879) 4 QBD 228 bicycles are defined as "carriages" and therefore not allowed on pavements; biker convicted for "furious" cycling.[2]
In my judgment a person who is walking across a pedestrian crossing pushing a bicycle, having started on the pavement on one side on her feet and not on the bicycle, and going across pushing the bicycle with both feet on the ground so to speak is clearly a 'foot passenger'. If for example she had been using it as a scooter by having one foot on the pedal and pushing herself along, she would not have been a 'foot passenger'. But the fact that she had the bicycle in her hand and was walking does not create any difference from a case where she is walking without a bicycle in her hand.
Road Traffic Act 1988 s 30, creates an offence for being incapable of having proper control, not necessarily being a bit drunk.
A person who, when riding a cycle on a road or other public place, is unfit to ride through drink or drugs (that is to say, is under the influence of drink or a drug to such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control of the cycle) is guilty of an offence.
^ Taylor v. Goodwin, [1]; also, Smith v Kynnersley [1903] 1 KB 788 (cyclist not liable to pay bridge toll) and Corkery v Carpenter [1951] I KB 102 (cyclist liable for offence where cycling drunk)
![[icon]](File:Wiki_letter_w_cropped.svg){kind=small}
